Has anyone taken this magazine for some time? I tried it once, and although it was very thorough and honest, I question the results. Their data is based solely on one example of each firearm. Statistically I would like to feel that several examples of each had been tested. This would probably be way too expensive to do. I just wonder how representative a single example is. Every brand/model has the occasional lemon. Maybe they tested that one? Or perhaps they got the only good one of that particular brand. Anyone with experience as to the overall usefullness of their ratings?
"Gun Tests" magazine
- Thread starter Oldnamvet
- Start date
- Status
john1911
Member
I get it and am not that impressed. I decided to try a subscription after years of them sending me advertising letters. I expected a magazine, not a 20 page flyer. I think they need to test more than one example of each gun. They tend to pick at little things and don't give much mention to accuracy or reliability.
The current premise seems to me:
"Me and Jimbob shot this one gun for an hour and here's what we think."
The current premise seems to me:
"Me and Jimbob shot this one gun for an hour and here's what we think."
Jim Watson
Member
Subscriptions are high enough with no advertising and them buying, then selling secondhand, the single example they do shoot. I hate to think what it would cost to develop a statistically significant sample.
Best to read what they have to say and then start looking for happy or dissatisfied owners on the Net. Don't buy or discount anything on the spur of the moment.
It is kind of a narrow gauge outfit, but it is a refreshing change from the press release driven articles in the newsstand slicks.
Best to read what they have to say and then start looking for happy or dissatisfied owners on the Net. Don't buy or discount anything on the spur of the moment.
It is kind of a narrow gauge outfit, but it is a refreshing change from the press release driven articles in the newsstand slicks.
Personally i like the magazine, i know they only test one example of the gun, but frankly that could be the one that you buy. I like that its not like Guns and Ammo which are basically press releases from the companies.
Having said that i look at the gun they are testing that i want to buy and see the good and the bad and then i research it more on the web and see if its an isolated incident. If it isnt i wont buy the gun, but if it is ill probably buy it.
IMHO most people who dont like the magazine had their favorite gun tested by it and Gun Tests found it lacking. Another thing that people hate is when a lower priced gun outperforms the more expensive one, since everyone "knows" S&W outperforms Taurus and Ruger everytime.
Having said that i look at the gun they are testing that i want to buy and see the good and the bad and then i research it more on the web and see if its an isolated incident. If it isnt i wont buy the gun, but if it is ill probably buy it.
IMHO most people who dont like the magazine had their favorite gun tested by it and Gun Tests found it lacking. Another thing that people hate is when a lower priced gun outperforms the more expensive one, since everyone "knows" S&W outperforms Taurus and Ruger everytime.
Father Knows Best
Member
The applicable saying here ...
The perfect is the enemy of the good.
Yes, it is true that the reports in Gun Tests aren't perfect, because they don't test every firearm the way you may want them tested, and they don't test enough samples that you could reasonably rely on the results as a predictor of what any particular sample you buy may be like. As Jim Watson points out, though, they do provide a unique data point not available anywhere else. At the very least, they buy off-the-rack guns, not ones hand-picked by the manufacturers and potentially massaged to give excellent "test" results, as is often the case with other gun rags. They also accept no advertising, which eliminates the pressure not to say negative things about a product for fear of losing all-important ad revenue.
I used to subscribe. I don't anymore, but that's only because I'm not really in the market for new guns right now. If I was shopping for new guns, I would definitely subscribe. Gun Tests wouldn't be my only source of information for deciding on a new purchase, but it would be one source I would look to and weigh against everything else.
The perfect is the enemy of the good.
Yes, it is true that the reports in Gun Tests aren't perfect, because they don't test every firearm the way you may want them tested, and they don't test enough samples that you could reasonably rely on the results as a predictor of what any particular sample you buy may be like. As Jim Watson points out, though, they do provide a unique data point not available anywhere else. At the very least, they buy off-the-rack guns, not ones hand-picked by the manufacturers and potentially massaged to give excellent "test" results, as is often the case with other gun rags. They also accept no advertising, which eliminates the pressure not to say negative things about a product for fear of losing all-important ad revenue.
I used to subscribe. I don't anymore, but that's only because I'm not really in the market for new guns right now. If I was shopping for new guns, I would definitely subscribe. Gun Tests wouldn't be my only source of information for deciding on a new purchase, but it would be one source I would look to and weigh against everything else.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Gun Tests seems well intentioned, but peculiar. They are not biased by advertising and they buy their guns various places, sometimes from the maker, sometimes from stores.
The problem with GT is their lack of consistency between tests for similar guns in different issues, lack of consistency in how they evaluate guns (what determines their final rating and why), and a lack of consistency in the accuracy of what they report. Similar full size pistols, for example, may be tested at 10, 15, 20, and 25 yards, or 25, 30, and 50 feet. So the respected 1" grouping for a gun in one issue may not be the same 1" group in another when you realize that one was shot at 15 yards and the other as 30 feet.
A gun can function well, be accurate, etc., but if the reviewers don't like it, they will down rate it even if it did betters in the group they tested. I have seen this with one pistol for which none of the people who shot it said it fit their hand very well, but it shot the best and had no malfunctions. This was also the case with the Beretta Storm carbine compared to the Olympic AR15 in 9mm or .40. The Olympic wasn't as accurate and had some malfunction problems, but because the GT folks didn't like how the Storm was setup, they rated the Olympic higher and said they thought that some ammo could be found to run well and accurately in the gun. What? So the Olympic was given a higher rating because they liked the AR15 layout better, even though they could not make it run better or more accurately than the Storm. Weird.
They have also been caught several times making glaring mistakes in their descriptions of the guns being tested such as listing wrong models, wrong weights, wrong lengths, etc.
Also, as a Gun Tests magazine, why they have a section by Todd Woodward (Woodard?) on political issues and other related news is beyond me. They have left that in, but seem to have taking out Firing Line comments from readers that note mistakes.
GT means well, but comes up with some weird results that may or may not be any more useful than what you get in the shiny newstand magazines where you see a glowing review of a gun in the same issue where there is lots of full page advertising for that very gun or brand.
The problem with GT is their lack of consistency between tests for similar guns in different issues, lack of consistency in how they evaluate guns (what determines their final rating and why), and a lack of consistency in the accuracy of what they report. Similar full size pistols, for example, may be tested at 10, 15, 20, and 25 yards, or 25, 30, and 50 feet. So the respected 1" grouping for a gun in one issue may not be the same 1" group in another when you realize that one was shot at 15 yards and the other as 30 feet.
A gun can function well, be accurate, etc., but if the reviewers don't like it, they will down rate it even if it did betters in the group they tested. I have seen this with one pistol for which none of the people who shot it said it fit their hand very well, but it shot the best and had no malfunctions. This was also the case with the Beretta Storm carbine compared to the Olympic AR15 in 9mm or .40. The Olympic wasn't as accurate and had some malfunction problems, but because the GT folks didn't like how the Storm was setup, they rated the Olympic higher and said they thought that some ammo could be found to run well and accurately in the gun. What? So the Olympic was given a higher rating because they liked the AR15 layout better, even though they could not make it run better or more accurately than the Storm. Weird.
They have also been caught several times making glaring mistakes in their descriptions of the guns being tested such as listing wrong models, wrong weights, wrong lengths, etc.
Also, as a Gun Tests magazine, why they have a section by Todd Woodward (Woodard?) on political issues and other related news is beyond me. They have left that in, but seem to have taking out Firing Line comments from readers that note mistakes.
GT means well, but comes up with some weird results that may or may not be any more useful than what you get in the shiny newstand magazines where you see a glowing review of a gun in the same issue where there is lots of full page advertising for that very gun or brand.
Aguila Blanca
Member
If you do a search right here in the back threads of The High Road, you'll find some discussion documenting the fact that they are, in addition to being unscientific and arbitrary, ... liars. They say they buy their test guns, but it has been documented that this is not always true.
I compare them to Consumer Reports for automobiles ... which is to say "useless." I used to know one of the CR auto tester/writers personally. "Eccentric" and "opinionated" are much too mild to describe this guy. He was extremely intelligent, which unfortunately left him convinced that he knew something about automobiles. His car reviews were just like Gun Tests firearms reviews -- off-the-cuff, differing criteria for every test, and final conclusions and recommendations not remotely supported by the test data.
Save your money. Buy a subscription to the Disney magazine -- you'll learn just as much about guns, and have something to pass along to the grandchildren.
I compare them to Consumer Reports for automobiles ... which is to say "useless." I used to know one of the CR auto tester/writers personally. "Eccentric" and "opinionated" are much too mild to describe this guy. He was extremely intelligent, which unfortunately left him convinced that he knew something about automobiles. His car reviews were just like Gun Tests firearms reviews -- off-the-cuff, differing criteria for every test, and final conclusions and recommendations not remotely supported by the test data.
Save your money. Buy a subscription to the Disney magazine -- you'll learn just as much about guns, and have something to pass along to the grandchildren.
GT does come up with some off-the-wall stuff, like saying that a shotgun in a home defense situation will "fill the room with a cloud of shot" so it doesn't have to be aimed. Nonsense, of course.
But I like to read their views, mainly because I will probably be buying very few of the guns they test.
But one criticism I consider invalid is that they test only one sample of a gun. So what? How many thousands would it take to satisfy the critics? And how many will YOU buy? If you can afford to buy thousands of copies of the same gun and test for years until you find the best one, well and good. Most of us can't do that, so we end up with one sample, just like GT. Opinions on cosmetic matters aside, if their sample doesn't work, why should I assume mine will?
Jim
But I like to read their views, mainly because I will probably be buying very few of the guns they test.
But one criticism I consider invalid is that they test only one sample of a gun. So what? How many thousands would it take to satisfy the critics? And how many will YOU buy? If you can afford to buy thousands of copies of the same gun and test for years until you find the best one, well and good. Most of us can't do that, so we end up with one sample, just like GT. Opinions on cosmetic matters aside, if their sample doesn't work, why should I assume mine will?
Jim
Yes, they are somewhat inconsistent in their ratings. You definitely have to read through their evaluations and see what it was they liked or didn't like; then decide if you agree or disagree. I don't like that they have removed the Firing Line letters either. The political piece is normally small so it doesn't bother me. I am paid up for the next couple years anyway. I renewed early on all my magazines after moving this year.
They may not be biased, but they are stubborn and opinionated and that affects their evaluations sometimes.
I remember years ago they tested baseline 1911 pistols. Springfield loaded, Kimber, and Colt I think. They rated the Kimber and Springfield both better than the Colt while talking about how people like to buy Colts and upgrade them. I think the Kimber was best but was nearly twice as much as the Springfield.
Later, they tested more 1911's and what did they compare them to? Their Colt pistol that they upgraded. They didn't keep the other two that rated better. The Colt name got them I guess. I just thought that was amusing.
They may not be biased, but they are stubborn and opinionated and that affects their evaluations sometimes.
I remember years ago they tested baseline 1911 pistols. Springfield loaded, Kimber, and Colt I think. They rated the Kimber and Springfield both better than the Colt while talking about how people like to buy Colts and upgrade them. I think the Kimber was best but was nearly twice as much as the Springfield.
Later, they tested more 1911's and what did they compare them to? Their Colt pistol that they upgraded. They didn't keep the other two that rated better. The Colt name got them I guess. I just thought that was amusing.
High Planes Drifter
Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2006
- Messages
- 1,204
I get it. I am overall satisfied with the magazine. I am not, however, satisfied with whatever shipping process they have. Constantly late on my subscriptions, darned near every month.
Hawk
Member
I've been getting it for several years and intend to continue.
Some of the stuff seems arbitrary, but they clearly identify what did or did not stick in their craw and one can re-weight the conclusion based on one's own priorities.
I wouldn't be troubled buying a "don't buy" after reading the review if the criteria for the "don't buy" didn't concern me.
Overall, it's a valuable resource. I only subscribe to two gun magazines - Swat being the other. As others have noted, most of the rest are little more than press release services.
Some of the stuff seems arbitrary, but they clearly identify what did or did not stick in their craw and one can re-weight the conclusion based on one's own priorities.
I wouldn't be troubled buying a "don't buy" after reading the review if the criteria for the "don't buy" didn't concern me.
Overall, it's a valuable resource. I only subscribe to two gun magazines - Swat being the other. As others have noted, most of the rest are little more than press release services.
ajax
Member
I subscribe and I like the fact that their 20 pages of info are more useful than the 60 plus pages you get with other gun rags that somehow manage to cram 50 pages of ads into those 60 plus pages.
Starter52
Member
I subscribed for years, but I quit when they strayed from testing guns and began to run gunsmithing articles. A five-issue "story" about tuning your 1911made me decide not to renew.
gbran
Member
Without regard to whether or not GT is a good or bad rag, the complaint that they only test one sample, is not comparative. Most, if not all gun magazines and their articles are not based on multiple sample being tested.
For want of a better answer, because the sample size isn't big enough. Like you said, how many would you need to test before someone would be happy? Statistics can tell you the probability that if 5 out of 100 guns that XYZ made were defective, you can determine the probability that, if you buy two guns, (one for you and one for your s.o.), both with be bad. But it is only a probability, and all we really care about is whether the guns we got were good.
Of course, if 75% of the guns made by XYZ were given a bad review by the magazine because of some real defect, I would have to think hard about buying anything made by them.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Right, well statistics are one matter and a very good matter and having a large sample would be really nice. The problem is, that with a sample size of 1, you don't know if the 1 is the norm or is the exception and when the gun turns out to be a bad one, are you inclined to buy another of the same model?
Me, I tend to think twice when a gun is poorly reviewed by GT. As noted, you have to read the whole review and determine all the specifics and generally they are pretty good at explaining these.
If a gun gets a poor review because it doesn't function properly, even as a sample of 1, do I want to go out and spend several hundred dollars on a gun of my own to refute their testing? Probably not.
About 1-2 years ago, GT started reviewing non-gun accessories like binocs/rangefinders, knives. A reader wrote into the Firing Line section and complained, saying it was Gun Tests, not tests of things other than guns. The response was snotty and said GT had done a market survey and their market wanted reviews of the other items. I was going to let my subscription lapse at that time, but then the strange item reviews stopped.
FYI, GT does sell your information. I renewed to a new address (my cabin out where I shoot), GT the only gun rag I take, and the only item sent to that address, and now the box gets stuffed with NRA advertisements. That how now morphed into other ads from other organizations, I assume via the NRA, but maybe due to GT. Either way, until I had GT sent there, all I ever received was junk mail from the local markets.
Me, I tend to think twice when a gun is poorly reviewed by GT. As noted, you have to read the whole review and determine all the specifics and generally they are pretty good at explaining these.
If a gun gets a poor review because it doesn't function properly, even as a sample of 1, do I want to go out and spend several hundred dollars on a gun of my own to refute their testing? Probably not.
About 1-2 years ago, GT started reviewing non-gun accessories like binocs/rangefinders, knives. A reader wrote into the Firing Line section and complained, saying it was Gun Tests, not tests of things other than guns. The response was snotty and said GT had done a market survey and their market wanted reviews of the other items. I was going to let my subscription lapse at that time, but then the strange item reviews stopped.
FYI, GT does sell your information. I renewed to a new address (my cabin out where I shoot), GT the only gun rag I take, and the only item sent to that address, and now the box gets stuffed with NRA advertisements. That how now morphed into other ads from other organizations, I assume via the NRA, but maybe due to GT. Either way, until I had GT sent there, all I ever received was junk mail from the local markets.
wanderinwalker
Member
I can't take Gun Tests too seriously (nor do I take Consumer Reports too seriously either).
My issue was, I discovered posted to the Web once an article they did comparing "DCM-ready" AR-15 rifles. There was an Armalite, a Bushy and something else (a Colt maybe). I read it and decided that they really had no idea what purpose the rifles were intended for and how to evaluate them for that use. There was little about the barrel twists, group sizes at extended range, whether or not the triggers were tuned from the factory, sight options, whether or not the barrels were free-floated and other things competition shooters look at.
Haven't looked back at them again since.
My issue was, I discovered posted to the Web once an article they did comparing "DCM-ready" AR-15 rifles. There was an Armalite, a Bushy and something else (a Colt maybe). I read it and decided that they really had no idea what purpose the rifles were intended for and how to evaluate them for that use. There was little about the barrel twists, group sizes at extended range, whether or not the triggers were tuned from the factory, sight options, whether or not the barrels were free-floated and other things competition shooters look at.
Haven't looked back at them again since.
mauser7
Member
With regard to the sample size issue, it seems to me that you neglect to consider that they will actually have a very large sample size...eventually. I subscribed for several years and saved all the back issues. (remember what Bob Brownell said, the smart man may not remember everything, but he remembers where to look it up) When I would review the past two or three years worth of issues I would find that they would have tested maybe a dozen or more of any particular rifle or brand. At that time the most accuarte rifles that they had tested tended to be Browning A-bolts. Covering caliber and configurations ranging from varmint to Brown Bear or Elk rifles.
The next thing to keep in mind is that even a critic you disagree with is useful if they are clear about what and why they like or dislike about something. As a previous commenter said, you compare their like/dislikes to yours and reweight accordingly.
As far as the august opinions of THR readers and commenters. Well, lets just say none of us had to pass a test or present credentials to be on here. I have read many excellent thoughful and educational things on these pages. I've also read post that were much less so.
The power of this and other internet media is that each of us has some special experence or training that others don't have, a distributed intelligence, sort of thing.
But each of us probably has only had a similarly limited amount of exposure to any particular firearm that Gun Test has. Or do some of you regularly buy a half dozen remington 700's in .300 WSM to try out? Making sure of course that they produced at different points of the production run to truely randomize your sample.
Didn't think so. And even if you did what would it prove about the one I'm going to buy?
To return for a moment those back issues of Gun Test, Savage rifles tended to be only fair most of the time in the accuracy department. But I recall on two occasions they had samples go under 1" with almost everything they fired.
I see one big advantage to Gun Test over most of the other magazines, and that is there are more actual gun tests in each issue then any other I could name.
The next thing to keep in mind is that even a critic you disagree with is useful if they are clear about what and why they like or dislike about something. As a previous commenter said, you compare their like/dislikes to yours and reweight accordingly.
As far as the august opinions of THR readers and commenters. Well, lets just say none of us had to pass a test or present credentials to be on here. I have read many excellent thoughful and educational things on these pages. I've also read post that were much less so.
The power of this and other internet media is that each of us has some special experence or training that others don't have, a distributed intelligence, sort of thing.
But each of us probably has only had a similarly limited amount of exposure to any particular firearm that Gun Test has. Or do some of you regularly buy a half dozen remington 700's in .300 WSM to try out? Making sure of course that they produced at different points of the production run to truely randomize your sample.
Didn't think so. And even if you did what would it prove about the one I'm going to buy?
To return for a moment those back issues of Gun Test, Savage rifles tended to be only fair most of the time in the accuracy department. But I recall on two occasions they had samples go under 1" with almost everything they fired.
I see one big advantage to Gun Test over most of the other magazines, and that is there are more actual gun tests in each issue then any other I could name.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
